Rangers delist from AIM

[Davie P 4]

If KingCo +T3B are willing and able to provide all the finance that Rangers require to meet the new 7 Year Plan which is several times the £10m or so that will be raised in the rights issue, then it would indeed be to his advantage to delist but it is this suggestion that is at best futile and at worst delusional.

 

In this regard, King is guilty of either a severe error of judgement or blatant deception in regard to the appointment of a NOMAD and the de-listing of the company if that should come to pass.

 

You honestly believe that institutional investors are going to buy shares in Rangers after everything that has happened in the past? Good luck with that.

[der Berliner 3,245]

If KingCo +T3B are willing and able to provide all the finance that Rangers require to meet the new 7 Year Plan which is several times the £10m or so that will be raised in the rights issue, then it would indeed be to his advantage to delist but it is this suggestion that is at best futile and at worst delusional.

 

In this regard, King is guilty of either a severe error of judgement or blatant deception in regard to the appointment of a NOMAD and the de-listing of the company if that should come to pass.

 

It would do well if we do not fall hand in hand with the media when it comes to the sensationalist use of certain words. We hardly have any idea what has stopped the company and/or King from naming or appointing or finding a NOMAD. Or any of latters' reason to decline working for us, if that is the case. What has lead King to make his statement pre take-over might well have changed since then, or why said NOMAD declined working for us. We've done enough doom-singing these last three years, perhaps we give those currently running us the benefit of the doubt for the time being? For we know that they won't turn the knife in our backs.

Edited April 2, 2015 by der Berliner

[BrahimHemdani 1]

You honestly believe that institutional investors are going to buy shares in Rangers after everything that has happened in the past? Good luck with that.

 

Institutions will buy shares in companies where they see a profit to be made. If the Plan is successful there is no doubt that there is a profit to be made and if the new Board turn out to be better than their recent predecessors then the chances of that happening are greatly enhanced are they not?

[Bluedell 5,329]

However I cannot see any move to restrict the free trading of the Company's shares as positive.

 

You may know more about the buying of shares than me, but I'd have thought that shares could still be bought and sold fairly easily outside of AIM, and without the costs and regulatory restrictions involved.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

 

However I'd agree at this point they need to go back in to establish credibility and then make the decision to delist of appropriate.

 

I agree that this is something that should only be contemplated from strength not weakness.

 

However I cannot see any move to restrict the free trading of the Company's shares as positive.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

You may know more about the buying of shares than me, but I'd have thought that shares could still be bought and sold fairly easily outside of AIM, and without the costs and regulatory restrictions involved.

 

I am not holding myself out as an expert in this area but it's my understanding that share trading off any recognised stock exchange essentially would be by private bargain and I don't see that as helpful to a (hopefully) expanding company.

 

Regulatory restrictions are there for a purpose one of which is to allow shareholders to complain if the said rules are broken.

Edited April 2, 2015 by BrahimHemdani

[T-1000 174]

I am not holding myself out as an expert in this area but it's my understanding that share trading off any recognised stock exchange essentially would be by private bargain and I don't see that as helpful to a (hopefully) expanding company.

 

Regulatory restrictions are there for a purpose one of which is to allow shareholders to complain if the said rules are broken.

 

I also rather suspect delisting would not be welcomed by institutions, or for that matter Ashley, who presently hold shares in Rangers because there would no longer be a ready market for the sale of their shares and who therefore might find themselves locked in to an investment they no longer want. Whether these shareholders would have available to them some form of legal remedy is a question for a corporate lawyer.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I also rather suspect delisting would not be welcomed by institutions, or for that matter Ashley, who presently hold shares in Rangers because there would no longer be a ready market for the sale of their shares and who therefore might find themselves locked in to an investment they no longer want. Whether these shareholders would have available to them some form of legal remedy is a question for a corporate lawyer.

 

That's a good point and an equally good question.

 

There are also restrictions on the amount of non traded shares that may be held in a Unit Trust e.g. River & Mercantile and other vehicles, if indeed any are allowed at all. I would need to research that a bit to clarify.

 

It may also act to reduce the value of the said shares.

[rbr 1,247]

I also rather suspect delisting would not be welcomed by institutions, or for that matter Ashley, who presently hold shares in Rangers because there would no longer be a ready market for the sale of their shares and who therefore might find themselves locked in to an investment they no longer want. Whether these shareholders would have available to them some form of legal remedy is a question for a corporate lawyer.

 

Fuck Ashley

[T-1000 174]

Fuck Ashley

 

It is not really a matter of whether we like or dislike Ashley more what legal remedy may be available to him should Rangers be delisted and the possibility of this being detrimental Rangers.